TOMKINS: FERGUSON IS WRONG
Paul Tomkins 22 March 2009

Thankfully, most media outlets seem to have seen the massive inaccuracy in Alex Ferguson's figures relating to Liverpool's spending.
That he should even choose to come out with such figures in the first place is interesting, given his rather undignified reaction to Rafa's ‘fact' press conference a couple of months back. I'm also still smiling over his ‘we were the better side' comments following their total humiliation last week, which every neutral I've spoken to found hilarious. That United played so well was obviously the reason Old Trafford was so empty in the last 10 minutes. He's also had a pop by excluding Rafa's name from the best managers in the league, which seems a bit childish for a pensioner. You can't argue with Ferguson's success as a manager, but you can with some of the things he says. This season may be a learning curve for Liverpool, with the league United's to lose even before their two main rivals were drawn against each other in the Champions League (which yet means the teams aspiring to catch United play each other in titanic, exhausting battles, as seen with Chelsea and Arsenal facing Liverpool last season while United get the easy draw.) But the United manager is clearly worried, particularly as stability has been put in place at Anfield regarding the manager's future. That the United manager should already be talking about Liverpool's future spending is fascinating. Why do so, unless he's worried? Ferguson talks about the young players United have signed, and bizarrely says that Rafa, a man who started out in youth development, does things differently. Perhaps Torres, Reina, Alonso, Mascherano, Agger, Lucas, Babel and Skrtel weren't all young players – aged 20-23 – when Rafa signed them after all, and all the teenage talent brought to the club, including Insua, Nemeth, Pacheco, Plessis and Ngog, is just a mirage? How many players in their 30s has Rafa brought to the club? I can't think of one before or after Pellegrino, at 33, in 2005. Nor one as old as Henrik Larsson or Edwin van der Sar. Robbie Keane was the oldest major signing Benítez has made, and perhaps the fact that he turns 29 this summer was why he was shipped out so quickly; at that age, if it doesn't look like it's working, you can't bide your time, particularly if a good offer comes in before the age-related depreciation takes place. But the major flaw in Ferguson's argument is the fact that he already had half of his squad in place in 2004 when Rafa arrived. He hasn't needed to rebuild an entire squad from scratch, merely add the £15m-£30m adornments. Rafa has clearly had to deal in quantity to cover all positions, but Ferguson has had the luxury of looking solely at quality. So the two situations are poles apart. Ferguson had already spent big on players like Rio Ferdinand before Rafa pitched up. He already had the players who emerged because of his youth system, which took almost seven years to bear fruit beyond one player (Giggs emerged in year five). Benítez would only be at that stage in 2011. Indeed, if you add together every single player Rafa has bought (and there have been around 60, many of whom were mere kids), it still does not reach the total cost of United's current squad. Even if you also add the cost of those players Rafa inherited who are still at the club (and there are just three), it still does not reach the total cost of United's current squad. Including players out on loan (but not the full Tevez fee due this summer), United's squad costs over £215m, compared with Liverpool's £134m. Let me remind you of what I said a few weeks back: “Unless Ferguson is banned from fielding players like Ferdinand and Ronaldo (which would be illogical), or forced to start from scratch in 2004 (again illogical), it is not a fair comparison, is it? – I mean, come on, use your brain for a second here.” Benítez is trying to overturn an established superpower, one that still has a dozen-or-so players who predate his arrival in England. Rafa has just three who were good enough and young enough to endure (not that Hyypia was young, but like Giggs he is evergreen). As well as buy players, Rafa has had to change the culture of the club to fit in with his ideas, as all managers do; Ferguson did that 20 years ago. It's why it took him so long to win the title, as you cannot change things overnight. Unless Benítez was going to try and compete for honours with the likes of Diao, Cheyrou, and Diouf, or players like Smicer, Dudek, Hamann and Henchoz, who are now all in their mid-30s (and therefore had a very short shelf-life), or injury-prone stars like Harry Kewell, Liverpool needed a fairly complete overhaul. Particularly as Owen and Heskey had left, and Djibril Cissé was about to arrive, all of which had been pretty much decided before Rafa took the job. (Also, including Cissé as a Benítez signing only further skews the figures.) So the inaccuracies are clear for all to see. But let's switch things a little. How did Ferguson overtake Liverpool? The situation was very similar to that now, even if it was a long time ago now. Remember, both Ferguson and Benítez arrived aged 44, and inherited squads that had averaged 4th over the previous four seasons, and finished 4th the season before they arrived. All the fours, then! Each had a massive burden of expectation, brought about by a desperately long wait for the title. Alex Ferguson's average league position in his first five seasons at United was 8.6 (11th, 2nd, 11th, 13th, and 6th). Benítez's, if Liverpool finish only 3rd this season, will be 3.6. But Ferguson faced in Liverpool in the ‘80s an established team with a top-class manager. He couldn't get close to Dalglish during their time in the respective dugouts. Ferguson spent more money between 1986 and February 1991 (£12.8m gross, £9.87m net) than Dalglish managed in his six seasons (£12.5m gross, but only £5.77m net), but got nowhere near to toppling the Reds in that time. So United's net spend was virtually twice that of Liverpool, and yet Ferguson still didn't trouble Dalglish. The money Ferguson spent wisely in the late ‘80s on players like Ince, Pallister, Hughes and Bruce took four years to have any effect on the league title. This is only Torres and Mascherano's second season. So why did Ferguson spend so much more than Dalglish? Well, Dalglish (like Ferguson in 2004) had a lot of his squad already in place. Grobbelaar, Hansen, McMahon, Whelan and Nicol all spanned the entire period when Dalglish and Ferguson managed the two English superpowers. (Liverpool raised £3.2m from selling Ian Rush in 1987, but the Reds also spend almost as much to bring him back a year later.) Those men formed the heart of Dalglish's Liverpool. They were five players who didn't need to be signed between 1986 and 1991; the kind of quality that could cost a king's ransom if they hadn't already been snapped up before at the top of their powers. Ian Rush, the sixth name, also had a Liverpool connection which meant that although he needed to be re-signed, it was a relatively easy deal because of his time at Anfield. Of course, Rush's initial departure led to the greatest influx of talent seen under Dalglish: the wonderful quartet of Aldridge, Beardsley, Barnes and Houghton. So Dalglish was partly ‘blessed' in that Rush, whom he inherited, at least raised enough money to rebuild the attack upon his transfer. Ferguson has enjoyed similar bonuses more recently: selling his best players for big fees as they approached their 30s (such as Stam, Beckham and Van Nistelrooy). Such sales now help keep Ferguson's net spend down, but in his first five years he couldn't get such impressive sums for Ron Atkinson's flops. So his net spend was very high for the times. Again, make the comparison with Benítez and the likes of Diao and Cheyrou, who raised nothing. Benítez never had such a luxury. Owen's value wasn't great due to his contract situation, leaving £10m less coming in. The only seriously saleable asset was Steven Gerrard. The biggest profits Rafa has made have been on players he himself bought: Crouch, Bellamy, Sissoko. Of course, he hasn't been in the job long enough to sell his real gems, in the way Ferguson and Wenger (with Henry and Vieira) have picked the perfect time to cash in on world-class players aged 29/30/31. If Rafa wanted to sell Torres he could make a massive profit, but thankfully the striker still has five years before he even reaches 30. So it's not relevant. Ideally, Torres would score loads of goals, win Liverpool titles, and return to his beloved Atletico no earlier than 2014 for a big fee. Therefore you cannot ignore the way Ferguson overcame Liverpool – not by spending more, but by spending twice the amount. So there you have it. It took the resignation of Dalglish to open the way for Ferguson, who had spent twice as much money but only averaged 9th place between 1986 and 1991. No wonder United fans wanted him out in 1990. But it just goes to show how difficult it is to overtake a side that already has the momentum, but that the best managers get there in the end. If Ferguson is thinking back to how he did so, then no wonder he's feeling worried.

TOMKINS: FOUR DAYS IN HEAVEN
Paul Tomkins 16 March 2009

For once I'm almost lost for words. Where do you start after back-to-back results like those? Excluding cup finals and league deciders, I do not think there can have been two better results so close together in the history of the club.
In the grand scheme of things they are only small landmarks – two games – and United remain favourites to land the league title. But as markers of intent and ability, they could prove immense.
If Liverpool do go on to win either of the main competitions, these will be seen as the defining moments. If not, they are still boosts to the self-belief and proof of what this team can do against the very best, and help attain future success. Liverpool didn't just beat Real Madrid and Manchester United, they outplayed them and thrashed them. Unlike victories at Old Trafford in the past decade, this was no smash and grab; it was smash, smash and smash again. To do the double over Manchester United and Chelsea and still be outsiders to win the league seems incredible. But it's credit to United for such an unbelievable run going into this game; when Liverpool did stumble in the new year they took full advantage. All the same, United's remarkable clean sheet record was dragged through the Old Trafford mud on Saturday lunchtime. Beyond anything else, this week has gone to show that a fit Gerrard and Torres combination is as good, if not better, than anything in world football. Zinedine Zidane, no less, said Gerrard is the world's best player, and no-one will argue against Torres being the world's best centre-forward. Put them together, and they will tear defences apart. If fit. And whatever you say about the rights and wrongs of Liverpool's season, and the manager's decisions, you cannot dispute the quality that the pair bring, and how the Reds have sorely missed it. Results have been dug out in their absence, because of other top players and a canny manager, but these two are as sharp as any cutting edge gets. Torres still has an ankle problem, but unlike a hamstring, it doesn't affect his pace, and is less psychologically damaging. But even with a strapping holding the joint in place, he tortured the league's best defender this season. Vidic on toast, anyone? A key factor regarding Torres' fitness has been how in both games it took just a long punt to open the scoring. Liverpool can, and do, play pretty intricate football to work openings, but if you have genuine pace up front, allied to skill and strength, you can terrify defenders as renowned as Cannavaro, Ferdinand and Vidic with any kind of pass. Gerrard, like Torres, is also a quick thinker, and when the no.9 wasn't running in behind United's knot-tied defenders, the captain was. Despite this, and despite the pair helping put four past Madrid, Andy Gray was still talking about Benítez being negative in the absence of Alonso (whose injury was another major blow – he and Benayoun have been two of the form players) by not dropping Gerrard back into midfield. Gray made some fair observations, but this wasn't one of them. When will people get – or maybe just accept – just how good Gerrard is right up alongside Torres? When will people see the Liverpool captain as a quicksilver version of Kenny Dalglish? – not quite as brilliant as the great Scot in some respects (who could be?), but arguably just as devastating playing off the main striker. Gerrard now has more goals than any United striker this term, by playing this role. Yes, he's great in central midfield, too. But please, let's not accuse the manager of negativity when this formation has helped thump the double Spanish, English and European champions in the space of four days, with eight goals to just one in reply! It's true that Alonso and Mascherano aren't prolific, but it's not like United are getting 25 goals a season from this position. United's pair of Anderson and Carrick have two league goals between them, the same as Liverpool's. Giggs and Scholes, who also play there a lot, are undeniably ageing well, but are no longer goalscorers; they have one league goal each this season. It's like judging them on their abilities of five years ago. Ditto Gerrard, who was averaging six goals a season in midfield in 2004, before Benítez turned him into a 20-a-season man playing in the hole. Until last season, Gerrard didn't look totally convincing in the role, particularly against the best sides. Now he's excelled there against Chelsea, Madrid and United in the past month or so. Part of this is due to his own improvement due to gaining experience in the position, and part of it is down to the introduction of Torres and Mascherano in front and behind him, and the much improved form of Alonso. In other words, the team is getting better, to provide him with a stronger platform. United also tend to play Park or Fletcher on one side and Ronaldo on the other; the same wide-midfielder/winger combination as the Reds. While Liverpool have no-one to match Ronaldo's remarkable record of goals from the flank, Kuyt has easily outscored Park and Fletcher put together, while Riera, Babel or Benayoun can also notch goals. (And any Kuyt doubters, look at his run to help Gerrard win the penalty. Top class movement.) I won't deny that Liverpool still lack a little of the all-encompassing depth of United's squad, and that's a reason why, over the long haul, it's proved hard to win the league. But even some of the less-heralded squad members have shown their qualities this week, not least Andrea Dossena, who has picked a great time to show the attacking instincts he was bought for (even if the non-stop, lung-busting gruel of getting up-and-back in the Premiership from left-back has been a big culture shock), and Lucas, who showed great heart on Saturday, and despite the odd mistake was generally excellent.
Resources So why not play like this every week? As I've been saying for a few weeks, Benítez has had to sell his own signings in order to buy better, more expensive ones; trading his way up with a lot of transfer activity (making for a big, distorting gross spend), but rather than shelling out almost £200m, the reality is that he's been recycling funds, leaving a low net spend. United's current squad is roughly £80m more expensive than the Reds'. The gap in squad funding is immense, in no small part due to United's success on the pitch at the precise point the English game became a cash cow (while Liverpool's own great success was in a far less profitable era), and from being able to develop their stadium while Anfield remained largely land-locked. Look at it like this: even if you include every single player Benítez has bought, the total still doesn't add up to what United's current squad cost to assemble. Now, if in times of injury and fatigue, Liverpool had been able to also call upon Peter Crouch, Craig Bellamy, Luis Garcia, Momo Sissoko and various other players bought and sold by the boss, then would the squad be a lot stronger? Undoubtedly. But those players were sold as part of a process of improvement; without selling Bellamy and Garcia, Torres probably does not arrive; without selling Sissoko, Mascherano probably does not arrive. And the wages are a problem, too; it's not cheap to keep a big squad together. Just look at the two teams at Old Trafford. United's starting XI cost £45m more than Liverpool's, and their 18-man squad cost £176m to the Reds' £105m. That's a chasm. United have every right to spend more money on their squad, if they generate such amounts; but let's not enter into this mythological world created by United fans and myopic media mouthpieces to make out Benítez has had equal spending power. He hasn't. I also keep hearing that when teams like Everton fail to finish above Liverpool, or even get close, it's because of their lesser resources; David Moyes is still lauded as a genius, though. Meanwhile, Rafa Benítez is often lambasted even though he has worked miracles in Europe, and, domestically, has Liverpool currently punching at the same weight as a £200m+ über-squad (that of Chelsea, with a similar squad cost to United), despite a collection of players that only cost around 60% as much. Isn't this hypocritical? Can't people see this? Moyes has taken seven years to make Everton a very good side; Benítez has taken five to turn what was a decidedly average Liverpool team into a very, very good side indeed, bordering on excellent (if still not perfect), with only the 5th-most expensive squad currently in the Premiership. Hypocrisy abounds. Rafa is seen as someone who doesn't understand or prioritise English football, even though he's racked up his first 100 league wins in 50 fewer games than Alex Ferguson. Again, I'm not arguing that Liverpool are now better than United, merely that Benítez be judged fairly, based on facts. As another example of misconceptions, a lot of people appear to be criticising Benítez's substitutions this season, simply because he doesn't go for broke at half-time with bravado switches. And yet Liverpool have scored more second-half goals than any other Premiership team, and a whopping 24 in the last 15 minutes of games! Look at vital goals against both Madrid sides in the last ten minutes of Champions League games, or Kuyt's winner in the last minute of extra-time against Liege. Look at all the last-gasp winners in the league. Does this not suggest that, more often than not, the manager has been proved right? Does this not suggest positive changes were made, either with personnel or tactics, or that in some instances, no changes were right, too? The fact is, Liverpool have never been this well placed at this stage of a season since the league was re-branded in 1992; when I saw the figures a couple of games ago the Reds were five points better off than at any point in the past 18 years (going back to 1991, when the Reds trailed off in the spring following Dalglish's shock departure), and since then it's been six points from six. To go from a reasonably distant 4th to winning the title in one season is a big ask, particularly when the holders are also European champions. Even if the dream of the title ultimately proves a step too far, the Reds can go to Old Trafford and Stamford Bridge with extra confidence from now on. There is still work to be done, improvements to be made. But that's why I've always trusted Benítez; I've never felt that anyone could guarantee Liverpool the league title (given the odds stacked against the Reds these days), but I have felt that at least he has the unerring perfectionism that will drive him, and the team, on. Yes, he persists with some players out of form, but simply because he knows what they are capable of (as seen this week), and trusts that his belief in them can help them succeed; but anyone who doesn't do what he needs them to is quickly sold, as better replacements are sought. Without the ability to spend £30m a time on a number of players, it becomes a slower process – sorting the wheat from the chaff; keeping the good signings and moving on those who don't cut it. Unfortunately, every time he does this, a club like United, who were already more advanced in their evolution, can go and spend £32m on a single player, while the league as a whole strengthens (see Aston Villa as an example). So if Liverpool are not yet at that level we so crave, anyone who cannot see a marked improvement this season is missing the overall picture and choosing to just fixate on the negatives. The progress may not be in giant steps, but it's not in baby steps either. And that's good enough for me.

TOMKINS ON MADRID MAULING Paul Tomkins 11 March 2009
	When Real Madrid scored six goals in the first half of the league game a few days before the first leg, on the back of a nine-game winning run, the signs were ominous.
In last night's second leg, with a deserved 1-0 lead to protect (achieved against the odds in the Bernabeu), Liverpool could have scored six goals in the first six minutes. The Reds were simply sensational. The eventual 4-0 margin flattered Madrid. And then some. This was the kind of night that a decade ago I thought I would never see again. Hell, even five years ago it seemed a million miles away. Thrash an in-form Real Madrid in the Champions League? Are you joking? The kind of tempo and intensity on show against the most glamorous club side in the world is hard to replicate on a weekly basis, as, alas, is the fervour of the crowd. The Reds harried the life out of Real, and out-passed them too. The crowd rocked in a way that has become famous on European nights, but which is rarely replicated domestically. The noise leading up to the kick-off clearly inspired the players, and if only it could be the same every week, with the noise there before the players get the game started. But the visit of teams like Sunderland, as seen last week, don't get the pulses racing. If the Kop could make itself famous once again for its league atmosphere, it would surely be a big help, but against smaller teams there will always be a natural air of “it's up to you” aimed at the players (who themselves need to try and get a fast tempo going from the first whistle). While Rafa Benítez has given us some amazing European nights, none has come close to the emphatic nature of this result. It doesn't get close to Istanbul for overall jaw-dropping drama and the joyous rewards at the final whistle, or the euphoria of edging out Chelsea in the semi-final second-leg a few weeks earlier, but it is arguably the most incredible score-line Liverpool have ever had in Europe. Already the “Madrid aren't really that good” excuses are being trotted out, despite being the reigning double Spanish champions and on a domestic run that they've barely bettered in their history. For me, the game goes to show that Liverpool are not negative or cautious, but a great attacking team – when everyone is fit and the confidence is flowing. (Most teams obviously look a lot poorer when the confidence is low, and that certainly applies to the Reds.) A couple of months ago Liverpool showed how devastating they can be when it all clicks into gear at St James' Park, but it was written off as ‘just Newcastle', even though it was at one of the harder places to go in football. That day, Shay Given knew he'd had enough after being beaten five times and making about ten top-class saves. Iker Casillas, a similar style of sublime shot-stopping goalkeeper, might be thinking the same. On both these occasions, Liverpool broke through early on, when on top. Getting the first goal is vitally important to the confidence and belief of these players, particularly at Anfield. Confidence tends to drain away after the 30-minute mark if the breakthrough hasn't come, and thankfully the tie was as good as won at that stage last night. Results like this can't help but build an overall belief. The truism goes that ‘the first league title is the hardest to win', but in the Champions League Benítez started by lifting the trophy. That had two effects. It made people more inclined to say “but why not do that in the Premiership?”, and it gave the Reds that all-encompassing belief in Europe. Had Benítez, by some utter freak of nature (given the team he inherited) instead won the 2004/05 Premiership title, that belief would be there to keep, no matter what the current form might be. A monkey would have been off Liverpool's back, and his players will have known that a repeat was possible. Instead, in the more realistic scenario, the Champions League was won; not that it felt in any way realistic at the time, or that it was easy. Contrast this to Rafa at Valencia. He won the league at his first attempt, and the club's first for 31 years, as he organised a fine squad. But his European record wasn't that remarkable: quarter-finals at best in the Champions League, and a very good but not outstanding (given the strength of the competition) UEFA Cup win. So to pigeon-hole him purely as this European specialist is a little wayward. Yes, as a continental coach he understands the different styles of football. But for me, the key point (and I said this three years ago) is that “we can do it” belief – which cannot simply be talked into players – came in Europe. You cannot give that to the Reds in the league until they've been right there and done it, making it almost catch-22. But in the Champions League, they've had it since 2005. Benítez's Valencia didn't have that belief in the Champions League, but instead in La Liga; in his third season, he won the title again, by a bigger margin. But of course, results like last night's only lead to a highlighting of the supposed contrast between the league and Europe. But the fact is that over the course of his tenure Rafa has won more-or-less as many games in the league as in Europe, and that this season, his team have won a greater percentage of games in both the Premiership and the Champions League than the average across his previous four years. (And lost fewer than ever before, too). To win the Premiership these days you need an über-squad, and the Reds don't quite have the depth of Chelsea a few years ago and United at the moment, or that ‘been there, done it' experience. These are squads that cost between £200m-£300m, unlike Liverpool's, which, as I pointed out last week, cost around £130m. (Of course, it might be helpful if I didn't, as happened last week, mix up Rafa Benítez's net spend with the money raised from player sales: rather than a net outlay of £108m (from a gross of £188m), his net spend is only approximately £80m. Or £20m a season. I double-checked my own figures in calculating the cost of the five most expensive squads, but misquoted the numbers supplied to me by www.LFCHistory.net. Still, I'm not afraid to admit, and correct, my mistakes!) If you don't quite have as much depth, you need players like Torres and Gerrard to be able to play 90% of the matches; not only are they two of the best players in the world, but their understanding transcends the sum of two remarkable parts. Together they are lethal. I think this season they've only been fit to start a handful of league games together, and almost all of those saw them hampered by injuries or rustiness. While United can now cope better without Wayne Rooney, their results without Ronaldo are not impressive at all; and if they can miss one player with their über-squad, Liverpool will clearly miss two such outstanding attacking talents. Liverpool have proved this season against Chelsea, Manchester United and Real Madrid that, on occasion, they can cope without Gerrard and Torres – but the more games those two have missed, the greater the effort required by the others, and the greater the chance that the extra spark G&T can provide will not be compensated for. You can't have players that good in reserve; it's very hard to even keep players as good as Crouch and Keane (neither of whom are in Torres' class) happy on the bench. So no-one can convince me that if Gerrard and Torres been fit and in the form shown last night, Liverpool wouldn't have more Premiership points. All the same, they are not the only top-class performers. The likes of Carragher, Skrtel, Reina, Alonso and Mascherano, along with Gerrard and Torres, get their fair share of praise, so I see it as my job to give credit to the more unsung heroes. Some of the form players of recent weeks – Benayoun, Ngog and Insua – missed playing a part in this famous night, but they do show that there is depth to the squad, even if it's not replete with £20m-30m players. Benayoun has emerged from the shadows to show what a shrewd buy he was, while Ngog and Insua can only improve from the experience of this season. Indeed, Insua has already built on his steady-but-unspectacular tasters from the previous two seasons to now look very assured, while Ngog really showed what he can do in his last outing. As they mature, along with players like Jay Spearing and others who will emerge from the reserves, the squad will take on a stronger appearance. Despite his difficulties this season, Lucas is an important part of the fast-pressing game Liverpool try to play every week, when it's his turn to give another midfielder a rest. He's been a little clumsy at times, but it's that in-your-face closing down that the Reds do so well when on song. It's an unappreciated job at times, but such players can help set the tempo. Dirk Kuyt is another player I'll defend to the hilt. Give me Kuyt over the more gifted Arjen Robben any day. There's no doubt that Robben is a match-winner (when he turns up), but Kuyt is always involved in the best things Liverpool do, even if he isn't the man making the most silky touches. His effort is infectious, and his movement off the ball vastly underrated. For a right-midfielder, he has a great knack of popping up in the right place at the right time, partly due to a striker's instinct and partly due to his incredible stamina and work ethic. He set up the opening goal last night with his proactive run, but while it's easy to look at his pass to Torres as simple because he didn't beat five men and do a triple salco, he has a habit of getting in behind defenders. Look at how he ran off Heinze in the first place to leave him for dead – not with skill, but with intelligent running, to get a five-yard advantage. Babel also showed something of a return to form and better use of his left foot. I think he can be something very special, but he needs confidence. So let's be clear: Liverpool are deservedly the #1 ranked team in Europe based on the results of the last five years. That is a massive achievement in relation to the riches other clubs possess. Any single season can fall away due to a bad run of results, but consistency over half a decade in Europe's premier competition is the hallmark of a quality side that knows what it's doing and believes in itself in that arena. We all crave the Premiership crown, but we should be grateful for what we have. There's a long way to go, but with six wins and two draws from the eight ‘proper' games so far, you wouldn't bet against the Reds making it to another final. And what better place than Rome?

TOMKINS: END SHOCKING TRANSFER MYTH Paul Tomkins 04 March 2009
	Okay, it must end NOW! I've reached breaking point. The shocking transfer myth must be put to rest, once and for all.
I've tried in the past, but the media misinformation continues to gather pace like some ill-founded rumour. It's dangerous, because it causes unjust criticism. Let's make one thing clear: Liverpool have nowhere near the most expensive squad in the Premiership. No. Where. Near. Indeed, there are three clubs who have spent at least 50 per cent more on their current squad than Liverpool. Shocked? Well, you should be if you believe what's spouted out on TV. But it's true. And one of the clubs is not a name you'd necessarily expect. It doesn't help that some people – such as Jamie Redknapp last night – focus on Rafa's gross spend, rather than the net amount. Effectively, this means counting all the right-backs he's bought as one big outlay, rather than looking at how he's replaced one with another for roughly the same £2m fee. Working with just the gross spend, you add the £2m of Josemi to the £2m value of Kromkamp (even though it was a swap), to the £2.6m paid for Arbeloa. But none of these players were at the club at the same time, and each was traded to get to the point where an outright success was secured, as happened with the final purchase. So even though the total cost of getting Arbeloa was just the £2.6m paid, people will use a figure almost three times as high. That is illogical. (Another note, Jamie: Liverpool have three right-backs on the books, not just one; but the promising Darby, like Arbeloa, was injured and Degen has had a first season ruined by various ailments. So it's wrong to criticise the manager for an unbalanced squad and playing a midfielder out of position when three right-backs are unavailable.) It's like the housing market: you don't just go in and buy a mansion straight from school. (Okay, so maybe some footballers do, but not the normal people of this world. As someone stuck with renting, I'm speaking generally here!) You start with an affordable house; you then use the money from selling that to buy your next property. Most people can only get to own a big house having traded their way up over a number of years. Yet when someone asks how much you spent on your house, you don't add all the houses you've ever bought together, do you? If you own a £220,000 house, you don't say £470,000 because you add the £90,000 starter home and the £160,000 step up. That would be moronic. According to the excellent and reliable www.LFCHistory.net, Rafa's gross spend is approximately £188m, but his net spend is only £108m, given that around £80m has been recouped. (I'd hazard a guess that a large proportion of the £108m net spend has also been recouped through Champions League progress rewards, particularly with the Reds being the top-ranked team based on his five-year tenure.) So it's easy to pluck a figure of '£195m' from the air, live on air, and make it seem like that should make a team champions, or ultra-close challengers. But it's only the cost of the current squad that counts. Because that's all a manager can choose from; he can't go back in time and select a player he sold in order to trade up, just as you can't just turn up to one of your old houses and let yourself in. You simply cannot add Rafa having spent £5.8m on Sissoko to the £18m on Mascherano, because the two were never part of the same set-up; one was bought and sold for a profit, and as with a house, the money reinvested in a step-up. If Sissoko isn't bought and then sold, Mascherano probably doesn't arrive. Is that really too tough to grasp? From my own experience in writing 'Dynasty', I can attest that researching transfer fees is never easy, given the amount of undisclosed fees and various add-ons (for various things, like appearances, trophies won, national caps and the cultivation of unexpectedly daring hairstyles). But taking each fee as the most a club has expect to pay when add-ons are activated, I've calculated the cost of the most expensive squads in the league, and listed them below. (Note: while it's impossible to be 100 per cent accurate with the figures in the public domain, I'd say that overall it's at least 95 per cent of the true amount, and with rival teams I've actually been generous and excluded a couple of players whose cost just isn't listed anywhere I could find.) The most expensive squads (excluding players out on long-term loan) are as follows: Chelsea £207m Manchester United £206m* Spurs £188m Manchester City £140m Liverpool £127m (*£226m if Carlos Tevez's deal made permanent, given that it is initially a unique two-year £10m agreement, and very different from 99.9 of transfer deals. Effectively United are winning games with a £30m player.) So what does this tell us? Let's start with the leaders. United's squad contains the most home-grown players, such as Giggs, Scholes, Neville, O'Shea, Brown and Fletcher, who all arrived for free. So that shows that it is a long-established core supplemented by a lot of expensive signings added one by one to a unified collection. In other words, classic, spot-on building of a squad when already established at the very top. But it shows that even if you work with the unfair use of Rafa's gross spend, it still doesn't match what Ferguson has spent on his current squad, let alone those who have been bought and sold for record fees in the past. And this is utterly, utterly critical, and beyond the grasp of some people who cannot analyse things with common sense. After all, what does it matter how much Rafa has spent since 2004 if Ferguson is currently fielding players like Ferdinand (£30m) and Ronaldo (£12.8m) who were bought before then? Isn't Rafa – in the real world – competing with a team whose construction started well before he arrived? Unless Ferguson is banned from fielding players like Ferdinand and Ronaldo (which would be illogical), or forced to start from scratch in 2004 (again illogical), it is not a fair comparison, is it? – I mean, come on, use your brain for a second here. After all, how much as Harry Redknapp spent since he took over at Spurs? I make it almost £50m. How much has Rafa spent since Harry Redknapp took over at Spurs? Nothing. But only a nutter would compare the two in this deeply skewed way. Rafa has been in his job about five times as long as Harry, so you obviously wouldn't dare compare their teams. And yet Ferguson has been in his job about five times as long as Rafa, and yet the Spaniard is expected to have Liverpool as champions by now. Chelsea and Spurs are actually the more interesting examples in many ways. I knew Spurs had spent a lot, but to have a current squad that cost almost £200m shocked me. Add together the cost of Bentley, Pavyluchenko, Palacios, Bale, Defoe, Bent, Keane and Modric and you more-or-less end up with the cost of Liverpool's entire squad. I could be sarcastic – or media-style sensationalistic – and say that with that much spent, any manager should be able to win almost all of his matches, but it wouldn't be fair or logical. It's far more complex than that, and even a good manager like Redknapp has his work cut out. Chelsea and Spurs have had seven managers between them since 2007. This means different men making expensive signings and ending up with a mixed squad. Based on expenditure, both of these clubs are massively underachieving this season. Almost certainly to blame for that is the hierarchy having itchy fingers when it comes to firing managers. Of course, this analysis doesn't include wages, either. You don't get the very top players in the world without also having to pay them a king's ransom. Michael Ballack must be most expensive free transfer ever, with wages reported to be around £130,000 a week, or about £30m over five years. Again, Liverpool are no way near the highest payers, either. So there you have it. By all means print it out and pass it around; 'pass it on', as the saying goes, including to those in the media who could do with reading it. By all means quibble over some of the finer details, as there is a tolerance of a few percent on the accuracy of the figures, but the overall gist is very much sound and robust. Note: as all good schoolteachers tell you to do, my workings are there to see, and will be available to view on my website.